Killzone: Shadow Fall - Information about the frame rate and 3D support

Translation: During a small developer lap after the press conference Herman Hulst of Guerrilla Games came to the topic frame rate to speak. Be 60 FPS at a full HD resolution on the PS4, the new standard?

No, not necessarily, because the developers have made still free as they want to use the available resources. In the case of Killzone: Shadow case, for example, the Dutch have been shot at 30 frames per second at a resolution of 1080p.

Im so sick and tired of hearing people speak about the entire 1080p60fps thing when they clearly have no clue what they are talking about. Ofcourse WiiU can do 1080p60fps, in theory so can a ps2 or a 20 year old pc for that matter.

The concept is really simple. rendering at 60fps means you have to render images twice as fast as rendering at 30 fps which just simply means you can cram more things and better visuals into a game running at 30fps then a game running at 60fps.THIS IS REGARDLESS OF HARDWARE(sorry for the caps just want to make that part clear).

Nomather how powerfull the hardware is, running the game at 30fps will give the developers the opportunity to make the game look better and therefor nomather how powerfull the hardware is, many developers will chose to do so.

I guess no matter how powerful the system, if you want 1080p 60 fps, you will have to sacrifice some graphics.

As a launch title for the PS4, and it being KZ4, I dont thing GG wanted to do that. The whole point of this game is to show what the PS4 is capable of. Lets face it, most consumers dont know what 1080p or 60FPS is, they just see pretty fire and guns.

tell you the truth, it's just because they want to incorporate 3D, I have a pretty beastly PC, but when I turn on 3D it drops my FPS to 30, and synchs it with my monitor, even though my monitor is supposed to be like 120 hertz...it's just something that has to be done for 3D to work I think...not really super sure though.

It has nothing to do with 3D. They prolly will not even include that option. You people quite honestly have no idea what it takes to render 1080p and 60 with what they are trying to accomplish with the game. Don't forget Pixar renders at 24FPS kiddies. The PS4 is simply not capable of easy peasy 60 FPS with all that going on. And with proper MOTION BLUR it should be just fine.

Not sure why all the downvotes, just look at PS3 and Xbox 360...games continued to get better graphics as the years went by due to developers getting a better grasp on how to utilize more of the systems, Ex/ Battlefield 3, Halo 4, Killzone (well that game was astonishing from day 1 across every release)

@OP & UnholyLight "Remember this is a launch game, it will only get better years down the line. Heck Nintendo said it was possible for WiiU to do 1080p at 60 FPS"

I hope you don't really buy that from Nintendo. Did N64 games go from 2D to 3D over time? Did Ps2 games go from 480i to 720p? Did PS3/360 games go from 720p to 1080p (other than some 2D games and very few other minor exceptions)?

@SilentNegotiator actually I was not referring to the Wii U, refer back to my original comment. This happened this gen and you can see it. Not to mention the constant system updates, not sure about on the PS3 side but I know that the Xbox 360 production followed the technological processes and advancements such as the reduced nm size in the CPU or whatever. The system runs better than the first ones that hit the market. Ex/ My buddies old Xbox from 2007 has a slight framerate drop on a certain level on multiplayer in Halo 4 due to the fact that it isn't as up to date as the Xbox 360 "slim" is in terms of the parts that are on the inside.

So yeah, actually I would say the PS3 and Xbox 360 have advanced a little bit since the beginning of their production. Not to mention the Xbox 360 did not immediately offer 1080p from the outset(1080i or 720p was the highest), I think that came in a system update via Xbox Live sometime shortly within a 6-9month span of the initial release.

Im not sure what you are talking about, The PS3 and 360 BOTH can run games that support 1080p solution. I would love to know how you came up with your comment.

People, look. No matter how much power you give to devs on console, most of them are going to make their game run at 30 frames a second. Give them 10 times what PS4 has and they'll still only aim for 30 frames most likely.

Theres a simple reason for this, and that is that you, Joe Bloggs consumer, has expressed a wish for better graphics. You have decided that you want great graphics, and these beautiful videos and screenshots.

Most (not all) developers do not want their game to look inferior to all the other titles, for the sake of it running smoother. You can't see smooth framerates in screenshots for example.

Insomniac are one console developer that stuck to their 60FPS guns for years until they decided that it was not worth it for them anymore. http://news.softpedia.com/n...

There will always be some exceptions, sim racer will benefit more from more frames, the sense of speed and refresh for better physics for example. Some shooters may opt for 60 frames.

But the trend has been going towards 30FPS on consoles for years now and it is not reversing no matter how much performance you give to console developers.

The only way you are gonna see 60FPS on most games is if you go to the PC platform.

Being a launch game and easy to develop for means that is no longer true. While there has been moderate improvement to xbox games over the years, there has not been the dramatic shift where all the launch games on the PS3 looked like ass, and then 7 years later they look decent.

Yes, but on those machines 30fps can be buttery smooth due to some other factors.

The "rate to flip frames" is not really the issue. 30fps is fast enough. However, lag is. So, if you can achieve 30 fps (and maybe leave 5ms headroom) and can still have response times which are actually below 100ms a game at that frame rate will still be smooth.

Also, because modern games have advanced post processing effects like motion blur etc. which compensate for the frame rate.

The response time can be compensated to simply run a lot of parallel systems to the main render loop - which can now run a const 30fps.

E.g. physics and AI can run in parallel to these 30fps. This thing has 8 cores for god sake.

60fps is overrated, lag is the key for those new games. Imagine game speed is not screen refresh. You'll get the idea. Previously a lot of games handled events synchronously within the render loop; no modern engine does this any more.

"Nintendo know how to balance hardware,Criterion will bk me up what did it take 10 mins to get the game in pc mode ?"

The Wii U isn't even in the same neighborhood as the PS4 will be. Don't even bring the Wii U up in this one. And 60fps doesn't matter that much. If the game looks good and plays great nobody will notice fps. I'm sure by the second generation of games though developers will figure out ways to make all of that work together.

It's still nearly a year away from launch and the Ps4 Ram has just changed from 4gigs DDR5 ram to GDDR 8 gigs. This should make texture and visuals render at a high speed. I hope Killzone: SF runs at 1080px60 frames. According to Digital Foundry (?) they said the Ps4 could render at 1240px60F, 860px120f, and 480px240f.

lol....people(console only gamers that have no idea how hardware works, no offence) think ram is soooooo important, it is the CHEAPEST, least performance carrying part next to the hardrive and the usb ports

literally talking about the ps4's ram like it is going to render visuals is like saying, the ps4 can totally do 4k, it has 4 usb ports, it amlmost that insignificant

every computer you buy today has 8gb ram, and many of the SUCK for gaming, you can build a pc with 48gb ram and it wouldn't run games as good as the ps2 if it had a garbage cpu and gpu

most important is the gpu and chipset(mobo) next is cpu ram, hd and optical drive are about tied, with ram being ever so slightly more important, but truthfully, the real beauty of having fast and abundant ram lies it multitasking capabilities

landog- You have no idea what you're talking about. RAM is very important, as it can bottleneck the system if it is not fast enough of there is not enough of it. Also, game assets are held in memory. What kind of memory? Yep, RAM. More RAM equals potentially bigger game worlds, better textures and overall higher image quality. Faster RAM has more bandwidth, and thus a bigger part to play in this regard. The thing about the RAM in PS4 is that it is GDDR5 RAM, which is a world apart from the kind of RAM used in laptops and other computers (probably DDR3). You're talking about a 3x increase in bandwidth. And yes, it's expensive. GDDR5 only comes in 512 chunks, which means each PS4 will cram 16 of these into the system. So yeah, you've missed the mark a bit in your assessment.

Yes but it all depends on the rest of the assets,like textures,geometry...So to reach [email protected] is not difficult but they will have to cut somewhere else.This new KZ game looks great haves lots of new effects,bigger and better textures...not to mention that Guerrilla Games is still working with new hardware,it will probably happen but not just now.

"lol....people(console only gamers that have no idea how hardware works, no offence) think ram is soooooo important, it is the CHEAPEST, least performance carrying part next to the hardrive and the usb ports "

That comment was dumb landog. RAM is one of the most important parts of every console. That's why it was at the top of the list of what developers wanted from Sony on the PS4. Lots of RAM. Price doesn't matter but the amount of RAM is really important. Graphics are built in the memory. Both the PS2 and PS3 were held back from what they could have done because their RAM was too low. If the PS3 had twice as much RAM as it has the games probably would have been 1080p instead of mostly 720p.

So its Canon to the numbered franchise. It doesn't matter, It's a launch title and while the system is clearly capable of running at 60fps and 1080p most devs will likely aim for 1080p 30fps. KZ:Shadow Falk looks glorious for a next gen launch title and I can't wait.

Action games stand to benefit the most since they will no doubt be confirmed for 60 fps and a pretty solid resolution of 1080p.

There are reason for not being KZ4 AT NAME!They most likely didnt call this game KZ4 to not Conflict with the console name at release,and also in order to sell more!If his game was call KZ4 Especially at a release of a new console the PS4 plenty of people would say,look is just a sequel,this way it will not conflict with the PS4 name and more people will end up picking the game without connecting it to the KZ franchise like just another game sequel, it differentiates itself from the main cannon with a diferent name and history .The game will probably be bunble with the console so its better not having the nº4 on the title for marketing reasons too.

meh I want good games. Along as I am having fun I don't really care. Console gamers need to throw away their pc gamer like mentality. It's not a high end pc!! It's about good games & having a good time and less about textures for me.

30fps never stopped me from having fun. People want to analyze games instead of play games. But games will look and play better naturally on ps4.

do people buy 3ds and worry about texture and how many fps?

Worrying about this stuff defeats the purpose of console gaming. You not supposed to worry about optimization.

Let the pc gamers do that.

I am sure killzone will look pretty and play smooth. I am just hoping for a snow map similar to killzone 3. Best snow flurries I have ever seen. Even if it's not real time. I don't care. http://youtu.be/MsLWjKXOxRs...

Only the asshole PC Gamers do that. Most of us just enjoy our games and maybe find ways to make them run better without running to the console guys and telling them what we're doing.

Gamers are gamers no matter what they play on. The idiots on PC, are just like the idiots on any other platform. What people should argue over is Gamers, vs Fanboys. Not Platform vs Platform vs Platform vs Platform

1080p 60fps depending on the specs will definitely be doable WITH decent graphics, but they aren't going to look "true next gen" things will have to sacrificed. but hey who knows, lets see what they can do

You guys are idiots. Developers use 30fps, because the graphical loss that would have to follow if they used 60fps would be more considerable to consumers than the loss of frame rate. That's not really gonna change.

2x2.5 == 5, which is about how many times faster the PS4's GPU is than the PS3's.

So... you don't want the shaders to be cooler? Don't want better lighting, higher rez shadows, etc? You just want more of the same pixels from last gen? I'll take 30Hz and sub-1080p, if I don't have to look at blocky shadows and simplistic shaders on most of my games, thanks.

Congratulations, you are one of the few people with a lick of sense in this thread.

The PS4 has great graphics, ok, but they are not unbelievable, and this goes to show that the PS4 isn't that amazing. It's not going to be as costly has a PC that would run Killzone SF at 60 fps because it doesn't have that kind of power.

And I'm okay with that. I'm a PC and PS3 gamer, and playing with a mouse requires fluid movement, and so, 60 fps. Stable 30 fps, on console, is fine though, the controller isn't as fast.

Frame rate doesn't really matter. Not even on the PC. But you want the mouse handled in that 15ms a 60fps game gives you. I doubt you can spot your enemy in 33ms. And 180dgr movements are most likely skips frames anyway. Even 90dgr. So, you want immediate response, but what you see is often not really coupled to the frame rate. But, games on PCs eat up bandwidth by rendering at high speed. On modern multi core machines, if you can run systems in parallel, the frame rate isn't that much of a problem. But 30fps at the bandwidth limit most likely doesn't give you enough bandwidth to handle other things of the game and hence might dip at times. I doubt that's the case on the PS4. The demo ran absolutely smooth without lag no matter what was going on on screen. You don't have this problem on the PS4. You have guaranteed 8 cores. Always.

30 FPS at 1080p and no frame drops to show off them graphics is ok in my books. 60 FPS is a bonus to have. This does raise a question that has yet to be confirmed though. Will all PS4 games run at 1080p and or 60FPS?

As the name implies, frame interpolation in modern TV's does not add real frames to the picture; in other words, you're seeing the same amount of information. You know this of course, but I want to make it clear in case someone else's wondering.

That said, I enjoy locking some non V-Synced games to 24p movie mode in my TV (apart from using the 120hz motionflow), just do keep in mind that SOME games that require twitchy fast reflexes, precision platformers and the such may feel broken and a pain to play when using all of these tricks.

Dude. Motion interpolation creates new frames. Look up Interframe, or Avisynth Frame doubling. For professional use, people use Twixtor to make some really sweet slow motion by simply creating extra frames based on the adjacent frames and motion.

no, you're comparing some editing suit with TV's M.I. You can't "simply" create unexisting additional frames of real time animation in a videogame if said source content does not have them, not with some TV filter, we're not talking professional photography, high speed video or else here. It creates new frames, but it can't, *won't* unlock information that was not there in the first place.

Otherwise it would be easy to upconvert some PAL games to NTSC, we wouldn't have this debacle about EU's PS Store Alundra not being 60hz when it came out, we could play uncharted @60 or 120fps for that matter. I said it once and I'll say it again: those extra frames TV's create are not the same that displaying more picture information natively.

That is like saying 50hz content played on a 120hz display is 120hz content; think this through, stahp confusing people.

Adding new frames is exactly what it's doing, sometimes to horrible effect. They arent necessarily good frames, but they are there. i know the PS3 isnt sending the information and theyre "fake" frames.. It tends to result in a weird effect that can take some getting used to, but sometimes it's great!

Just reading up on motionflow on Sonys sites is enough to show how it works.

It's really easy to test/prove too. Make. 30fps animation and have a ball bounce back and forth on the screen. The movement steps will be clearly visible. Turn on motionflow and the ball moves smoothly. You can even photograph the ball in transitional positions if you're sceptical!

Also the 50/60hz thing is totally different - you can't change the true refresh rate - the real problem with badly converted 50hz games is they run slower than their 60hz originals. It wouldn't matter how many "fake" frames you add it'd still run slower than the 60hz version. :)

@Ingram: Frame interpolation on high end TV's do add intermediary and otherwise non-existent frames. The TV's do so by analyzing 2 frames and try to check what pixels have moved where, and they do it at an outstanding pace. Please examine Sony's MotionFlow, LG's Trumotion, and Samsung's Movie plus (samsung may have changed the name in newer models, tho.)

Nevertheless, this sort of post-process means that the TV set has to wait for the second frame to start to analyze the motion, and they analyze this and create the frame, all of which create extra lag, which causes problems for games.

LG's Trumotion is very fast and most games are still playable with this option turned on, however, all Philips sets I've seen with motion interpolation added massive latency.

I have quite a bit of experience with such tech, and a_squirrel is right.

Edit: That said, indeed, it cannot beat native 60fps, as any object or part that moves more than the motion search algo can search is left at 30fps. This creates portions that are 30fps and 60fps all within the same picture, and since the none of the algorithms can be good enough to see what comes behind the objects, faster moving objects will have visible artifacts around them. That said, the tech works wondrfully for Camera Pan's and slower moving objects, which creates a very fluid visual experience, although the cinematic feel of 30 fps is lost. 60fps for the win!

for f***'s sake... mixelon, I'm sorry to say but it is you who's mixing frames per second with refresh rate in the first place. Hence my example of the alundra non-valid framerate/hz upconvertion (...)"[motion interpolation 30fps converts really well into higher FPS]"<- this was your original comment and the reason of my following statements.

I was just stating the obvious,(almost the same things you guys said BTW), TV's motion interpolation is not the same as having a higher native framerate... those extra frames bring with them latency problems, also a fact, is that so different from what you guys pointed out? but all right then, be my guest and "augment" your games "framerate", holy mother of reason...

Good go play your atari. And no ps3 launch games were never 1080. Just because they wrote it on the box and transmits at 1080 doesnt mean the game has 1080 lines, it is only 500 interlaced(doubled/upscaled). Same on xbox.